Witcher 2 Again

[Malcador]

I don't get it either. They're trying too hard to pull the "cool indie guys" card with their trash talking of BioWare & Bethesda, only to push out a title that's even more dumbed down than the aforementioned devs' latest titles... and somehow they get a free pass for all their histrionics while no-nonsense developers like Piranha Bytes, Larian Studios or *gasp* Reality Pump are all but ignored.

 

Well the cool guys card is working, then, don't give consumers too much credit. Have they really trash talked those two that much ? I remember them saying their game will look better than DA2 but nothing else, or I've forgotten.

[WorstUsernameEver]

Well the cool guys card is working, then, don't give consumers too much credit. Have they really trash talked those two that much ? I remember them saying their game will look better than DA2 but nothing else, or I've forgotten.

 

They didn't. The comparison was born from consumers, not from the devs, who actually diplomatically stated they love those games. And honestly, The Witcher 2 is pretty wonky and uneven mechanically (I wouldn't go so far as to say terrible, because you can clearly see the intention behind the design and certain things were good, like the way you have to memorize monster's weaknesses and the crafting system) and that's part of the reason I didn't really enjoy it as much as the first (which was wonky too, but at least in a less annoying way). That said, is it really praised for its mechanics? Because so far I've seen praise for its writing, its maturity, its difficulty curve, the fact that it doesn't compromise things for players that don't devote their attention to the game, etc...

 

So yeah, while on one hand seeing CD Projekt too glorified annoys me, I can't say I can't see why people are enjoying the game, and I think it's a little disingenuous to chalk it up to "consumers being dumb".. there's certainly an aspect of that, but there's an aspect of that in the success of every game and every company, Obsidian included.

[meomao]

They didn't. The comparison was born from consumers, not from the devs, who actually diplomatically stated they love those games.

 

You are right, they never directly talked trash about Bioware or Bethesda. But their April's fool video was indirectly a criticism of Bioware's and Bethesda's games. But I think that smart PR has a lot to do with TW2 reception and reputation. For example, it's incredible how CDRed is using patches as marketing tools calling them "enhancement" or "free improved version 2.0" and to see the excited reaction of the player base. "You see, they really care for us!", I see it over and over again in gaming forums. But more power to them, PR it's a part of the business and in case of CDRed it's working well because they understand their players, while (for example) the "awesome button" is probably the worst marketing slogan in the history of gaming.

 

 

And honestly, The Witcher 2 is pretty wonky and uneven mechanically (I wouldn't go so far as to say terrible, because you can clearly see the intention behind the design and certain things were good, like the way you have to memorize monster's weaknesses and the crafting system) and that's part of the reason I didn't really enjoy it as much as the first (which was wonky too, but at least in a less annoying way).

 

Well, I can see the intention too: in short, they wanted to make the rpg version of Batman Arkham Asylum. But I can see the good intention behind Oblivion or Dragon Age 2 gameplay too, but it's the execution that damned those game in my eyes. Rightly so and I was very optimistic about DA2, so it's not confirmation bias in my part. Developers like Blizzard or Valve teach us that execution is everything. So, why the double standard? The story, the writing, and the moral maturity of other games it's not inferior to TW2 if you separate it artificially from the gameplay.

 

That said, is it really praised for its mechanics? Because so far I've seen praise for its writing, its maturity, its difficulty curve, the fact that it doesn't compromise things for players that don't devote their attention to the game, etc...

 

Well, while I agree on the pros you mention, TW2 is praised pretty higlly in general. A review or an opinion is about the whole game, wich is not the simple sum of its part. Normally, a game with good stuff on the "creative" side and bad gameplay is not treated that way. As I said before, if you remove gameplay from a storydriven RPG, what remains? Heavy Rain with some persuasion check...

 

So yeah, while on one hand seeing CD Projekt too glorified annoys me, I can't say I can't see why people are enjoying the game, and I think it's a little disingenuous to chalk it up to "consumers being dumb".. there's certainly an aspect of that, but there's an aspect of that in the success of every game and every company, Obsidian included.

 

Don't misunderstand me, I see why they are having fun too. I had fun. I don't want to sound polemic, TW2 is a good game crafted with lot of love and care. I'm simply discussing the claim about the importance of TW2 in the history of the genre and I really do not get in what sense a CRPG with bad and dumb gameplay should set the standard of the genre, considering that gameplay is such an integral part of a CRPG. They are allready the standard, we do not need TW2 to remember us .

Edited September 2, 2011 by meomao

[Nepenthe]

while (for example) the "awesome button" is probably the worst marketing slogan in the history of gaming.

They actually used the "awesome button" in marketing?! I've been under the impression it was another one of the gaming forum "witticisms"?

Edited September 2, 2011 by Nepenthe

[kirottu]

while (for example) the "awesome button" is probably the worst marketing slogan in the history of gaming.

They actually used the "awesome button" in marketing?! I've been under the impression it was another one of the gaming forum "witticisms"?

 

That's a Bio pr guy.

[meomao]

while (for example) the "awesome button" is probably the worst marketing slogan in the history of gaming.

They actually used the "awesome button" in marketing?! I've been under the impression it was another one of the gaming forum "witticisms"?

 

Are you joking me ? "When you press a button, something awesome happens". Laidlaw himself used the slogan right after DA2's announcement in interviews and such, when the devs were still in "honeymoon" with the fanbase. There was even that terrible video of a Bioware's PR rambling about "awesome and button combined in DA2". You could find it on youtube, but be wary: your IQ will decrease of 10 points after the viewing. Now they are acting like it never existed . In general, DA2's had one of the worst marketing plan I've seen in years. Trying to sell the sequel of a game that promoted a return to the golden era of D&D CRPGs, telling your players that well... "our game is stupidly rewarding"... it's really one of the dumbest move I've seen.

Edited September 2, 2011 by meomao

[Morgoth]

while (for example) the "awesome button" is probably the worst marketing slogan in the history of gaming.

They actually used the "awesome button" in marketing?! I've been under the impression it was another one of the gaming forum "witticisms"?

 

That's a Bio pr guy.

I watched all 4 hours through it.

 

Thank you. I'm now a loyal Bioware customer.

[Nepenthe]

while (for example) the "awesome button" is probably the worst marketing slogan in the history of gaming.

They actually used the "awesome button" in marketing?! I've been under the impression it was another one of the gaming forum "witticisms"?

 

That's a Bio pr guy.

 

****

 

That's THE bioware pr guy, their director of marketing. I know I have advanced mental circuitry for blocking out idiotic advertising, but I had no idea they were this advanced.

[HoonDing]

I don't get it either. They're trying too hard to pull the "cool indie guys" card with their trash talking of BioWare & Bethesda, only to push out a title that's even more dumbed down than the aforementioned devs' latest titles... and somehow they get a free pass for all their histrionics while no-nonsense developers like Piranha Bytes, Larian Studios or *gasp* Reality Pump are all but ignored.

 

Well the cool guys card is working, then, don't give consumers too much credit. Have they really trash talked those two that much ? I remember them saying their game will look better than DA2 but nothing else, or I've forgotten.

Here's their latest:

 

Q: Do you think that W2 release for Xbox360 in a window between other big RPGs (Skyrim and Mass Effect 3) is a good idea?

 

A: There are always big, strong competitive titles out there. We keep looking at when it

[WorstUsernameEver]

You are right, they never directly talked trash about Bioware or Bethesda. But their April's fool video was indirectly a criticism of Bioware's and Bethesda's games. But I think that smart PR has a lot to do with TW2 reception and reputation. For example, it's incredible how CDRed is using patches as marketing tools calling them "enhancement" or "free improved version 2.0" and to see the excited reaction of the player base. "You see, they really care for us!", I see it over and over again in gaming forums. But more power to them, PR it's a part of the business and in case of CDRed it's working well because they understand their players, while (for example) the "awesome button" is probably the worst marketing slogan in the history of gaming.

 

Well, they ARE caring for their customers. Few, if any, other publisher/devs offer what CD Projekt offers on release + that kind of support (and their patches continuously add more content and refinements, we're not simply talking about bug fixes).

 

 

Well, I can see the intention too: in short, they wanted to make the rpg version of Batman Arkham Asylum. But I can see the good intention behind Oblivion or Dragon Age 2 gameplay too, but it's the execution that damned those game in my eyes. Rightly so and I was very optimistic about DA2, so it's not confirmation bias in my part. Developers like Blizzard or Valve teach us that execution is everything. So, why the double standard? The story, the writing, and the moral maturity of other games it's not inferior to TW2 if you separate it artificially from the gameplay.

 

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you here, but again, that's not what is praised. And really, the story, writing, and maturity of other games IS very much inferior to The Witcher 2. Nothing Bethesda and BioWare have done for a good while comes even just slightly close. From that point of view, they barely have any rivals (though, considering the general level of the writing, that's really not too difficult).

 

Well, while I agree on the pros you mention, TW2 is praised pretty higlly in general. A review or an opinion is about the whole game, wich is not the simple sum of its part. Normally, a game with good stuff on the "creative" side and bad gameplay is not treated that way. As I said before, if you remove gameplay from a storydriven RPG, what remains? Heavy Rain with some persuasion check...

 

You are not really replying to what I've said. Plus, come on, of all the points you could use, reviews? The same that didn't noticed Oblivion's flaws until Fallout 3's release?

 

Don't misunderstand me, I see why they are having fun too. I had fun. I don't want to sound polemic, TW2 is a good game crafted with lot of love and care. I'm simply discussing the claim about the importance of TW2 in the history of the genre and I really do not get in what sense a CRPG with bad and dumb gameplay should set the standard of the genre, considering that gameplay is such an integral part of a CRPG. They are allready the standard, we do not need TW2 to remember us .

 

This is the first time that you, to my knowledge, bring this subject up, but anyway, The Witcher 2 is undoubtedly important. It's critically acclaimed, it's loved by gamers, and love it or hate it, what CD Projekt has done will influence other developers. What the influence will be, it's difficult to tell at this point. Also, I'd be inclined to agree with "bad" but TW2 definitely is not "dumbed down". Compared to most of the console role-playing games out there is positively hardcore in terms of what it requires from the players.

[meomao]

Well, they ARE caring for their customers. Few, if any, other publisher/devs offer what CD Projekt offers on release + that kind of support (and their patches continuously add more content and refinements, we're not simply talking about bug fixes).

 

Patching a bug or refining a feature that it's not working like it's supposed to be is a must, not a bone that you throw to your customer like a bonus. Adding small features like arena or a new mode that addresses a problem in the game in terms of difficulty setting it's good but it's not such a big deal. Blizzard patch their games to no end, the last NWN1 patch is 3 years old, but Blizzard or Bioware has never made such a clamour out of their patches because they owe it to us. I'm not discussing the level of CDRed ethics toward their customers. I'm just saying that it's funny to see them allways turning their patches in some sorts of internet or press events...

 

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you here, but again, that's not what is praised. And really, the story, writing, and maturity of other games IS very much inferior to The Witcher 2. Nothing Bethesda and BioWare have done for a good while comes even just slightly close. From that point of view, they barely have any rivals (though, considering the general level of the writing, that's really not too difficult).

 

I do not agree here, but it's very personal. In terms of writing and videogame storytelling DA:O and the average Bioware game are quite superior to TW2 imho. I liked the writing and the story in TW2 and it's a great improvement over TW1. But it's far from perfect and it has his good share of flaws in term of storytelling and narrative.

 

You are not really replying to what I've said.

 

Am I? You are listing the parts that are universally praised by the press and the players (I've praised them too in my first post). I'm replying that (with the exception of the codex's review) you cannot find a serious criticism about its gameplay. In my book, gameplay is a very important part of CRPG, especially of an action RPG. A bad story or low graphics hardly ruins a good game, infact people are still playing Ultima, Deus Ex and BG. While in my book bad gameplay allways ruins a good story or good looking graphics.

 

Plus, come on, of all the points you could use, reviews? The same that didn't noticed Oblivion's flaws until Fallout 3's release?

 

I am talking about the same reviews that are used without problems when they destroy a game or a company we did not like. Reviews are a part of the general consensum and they help to estabilish the reputation of videogames. I am skeptic too about the ethic behind gaming journalism, and I know better than to trust them blindly, but they are a part of the game and you cannot dissmiss their importance. Am I wrong or there's a thread in those same forum devoted to the discussion of Zero Punctuation?

 

This is the first time that you, to my knowledge, bring this subject up, but anyway.

 

From my first post: "I don't understand why TW2 is considered such a masterpiece or in what sense it should set the trend for the CRPG genre in the future".

 

The Witcher 2 is undoubtedly important. It's critically acclaimed, it's loved by gamers, and love it or hate it, what CD Projekt has done will influence other developers

 

I'm not going to argue those facts but I would like to understand the reasons, what CDRed has done to deserve that respect and especially in what sense other developers should be influenced by TW2, a part from the "caring for your games/customer" thing.

 

Also, I'd be inclined to agree with "bad" but TW2 definitely is not "dumbed down". Compared to most of the console role-playing games out there is positively hardcore in terms of what it requires from the players.

 

I respect your view but I imagine that we will agree to disagree on that point. TW2 is a dumbed down game made with consolle in mind. Proof of it: it plays way better with a controller than the keyboard. The skill system is flat, gives only passive bonus excpet for the "X" power (the awesome button of TW2) and it's not critical to complete the game at Hard difficulty, since it's only about "un-crapping" your version of Geralt. Take a look in the web, you cannot find a well reasoned "build" discussion, because there is no way to go wrong with your charachter build ad because what's the point if you are just handling two visible stats: damage and damage reduction. The combat is all about learning to roll and attack mixing bombs and signs in the process. The difficulty curve plays the same since the begnning to the end. There are plenty of JRPG or pure action games on the consolle that are way harder or more demanding than TW2.

Edited September 2, 2011 by meomao

[Wombat]

This is the review article by NYT. It is more about the content than game system designs.

 

As a geek myself, while I miss a certain part of CRPG such as game mechanics, I always felt the mechanism itself keeps people away from role-playing games. Too many things to learn and not so many people think such procedure wroth their time, not depending on whether they have ability to understand them. Also, games' content is often only for geeks who indulge themselves in a certain escapist worlds rather than something we can see in novels and films or even daily lives. Again, I see myself as a geek but, even with my standard, I find it's sad to see some geeks don't seem to have what I see as common sense/knowledge about how our societies work (In fact, I don't frequent off topic boards in game forums ). I'd like to see the content of games to be more like what I can see novels/films and even our daily lives. Or, I'd like it to have insight to our lives rather than escapism. So, while I fear that the content of the games may be heading to cheap shows like some major Hollywood movies, I'd like the content bearable for people at my age.

[Zoraptor]

If they can't sell 1 million units worldwide in 3 months then high profile PC games are most likely doomed.

1st half 2011 = six weeks sales (from May 17th to June 30th).

 

Or in other words: It's probably profitable after six weeks and without selling a single 360 copy.

Edited September 2, 2011 by Zoraptor

[Gorgon]

I also feel kinda cheated with the length of Chapter 3. It's like 2 small missions and then the boss fight, and then they made a whole alternate chapter 2 depending on whether you helped Roche or not. Strange. Not everybody is that interested in playing their games several times.

Ah but I am. I love an RPG that contorts on the player's actions. I will replay a game years later and once again be impressed with it.

 

** What I find that I don't like much is a game whose developer decides that every location needs to be shown off to the player in one go. Its not so terrible for an area to be re-used with differing events, but IMO some areas should never be found by some PCs.

 

***Put more plainly... I'd be fine with entire cities not being mentioned if it went against the PCs attitudes, luck, or ethics. Consider Tortuga in Pirates of the Caribbean...

I prefer freedom. If you want to get on with the main story you can do that, if you want to stop and smell the flowers and do side quests you can do that, but none of the content of the game is blocked on the first play-through. The division between humans and non humans felt as forced as it was in the first game and it would have been better left alone, although this time around they were a little better at not forcing words down your throat that you didn't even remotely agree with.

[Tigranes]

I find it a pretty good call actually - usually devs say "branching paths are too costly because most players will never see them", but in the case of long(ish) RPGs like TW2, well, most players never get to the endgame anyway.

[Wombat]

I haven't played recent Bioware works but, economically, good-evil paths make sense. The stories branched mainly to two and both of them are easy to follow even for children. To be fair to Bioware, not so many faction-based choices are successful in letting the players empathize with the given sides. A big trade-off is, though, that the designers can make the settings more bearable to mature players. In the Witcher 2's case, I think, it is successful in letting the players empathize with Gelart, to some extent, while building a relatively convincing setting.

Edited September 3, 2011 by Wombat

[entrerix]

i didnt click with geralt in the witcher 2. part of the reason i wasnt crazy about the game.

 

the nameless one i clicked with for sure, but i had a lot more control over his personality than i did over geralts.

[Wombat]

Well, PST was text-gen and this one is "movie" gen, so, I know what I'd expect. If you are still able to play modern games, it shouldn't be a problem now. For this year, this game and DXHR were enough for me (I may go for Age of Decadence if it is to be released within this year, though).

[Orogun01]

The idea behind a reactionary story its to add immersion by letting the players resolve events in their own given manner. It then again becomes an issue of the story that players want to experience and the story that developers want to tell. At that point its were the discrepancies begin, BW bottlenecks the consequences by making sure that the story moves forward in their desired path no matter what the choices were. CD Project on the other hand made the story highly reactive while maintaining key moments, the difference being that your choices actually affect those key moments. Unlike press A to upgrade your ship and face no consequences.

[Wombat]

Yea, I think they did more than a decent job in both making the game competent in the market and exploring role-playing element. Seeing entrerix seems to be by far more successful in adapting to modern gaming than I am, I don't see much reasoning for the comment. My game list expanded dramatically due to Steam sales for next to nothing but I found not so many titles worth playing mainly due to the content.

 

In any case, I guess I should be happy with that there are just enough games around for my spare time for this hobby.

[Orogun01]

This probably one of my least favorite things about the medium (specially since everyone began calling it art) It is not as reactionary as artistic movements who in turn often have a counter movement to the previous one both either moving away or towards classical sensibilities.

Whilst games on the other hand are completely market driven, with economics determining whether an IP becomes are series or a bust. Specially after the economic situation when every developer seems to be playing it safe. I'm afraid that text driven games are going to become a scarcity with a unlikely chance of return.

 

I'm crossing my fingers for a change in the market, although that doesn't guarantees a change in games.

Edited September 4, 2011 by Orogun01

[Calax]

The idea behind a reactionary story its to add immersion by letting the players resolve events in their own given manner. It then again becomes an issue of the story that players want to experience and the story that developers want to tell. At that point its were the discrepancies begin, BW bottlenecks the consequences by making sure that the story moves forward in their desired path no matter what the choices were. CD Project on the other hand made the story highly reactive while maintaining key moments, the difference being that your choices actually affect those key moments. Unlike press A to upgrade your ship and face no consequences.

Part of this might be sequel baiting/making sure that they can have a franchise. Consider just how much work is going to have to be put into TW3 just to fit in all the paths in TW1 and TW2 and have them be slightly significant (well... more significant than "did I pick Shani or Triss?" was). With Bio's method (which is being tweaked to be a weee bit more freeform than before) they can at least make sure that they have a concrete set of "what happened" that doesn't MASSIVELY change the current political landscape of their personal world.

 

 

Ok, Saskia is a perfect example of this. She's under the spell, or the spell is broken, or she's dead... Any one of these three creates an issue the writers will have to deal with if they intend to have Iorveth as a character in the future (although how he's treated in the epilogue doesn't really bode well for that) because that fight and political situation directly affects him as a character. Although they do seem to be aiming to paint the current path of our albino sex machine south into the Empire rather than stick around where the consequences are, but there are still some significant issues. Like Letho. Is he alive or dead?

 

[Gorgon]

Well, there was only one choice which decided what kind of Chapter 2 you were going to get, and I was rather annoyed when I got to Foltest's camp that a lot of content was blocked. I would have liked to have known that I was making that choice when I gave the sqoyatel (sp) leader his sword. It didn't feel like I was shaping the story, more like being forced down a binary choice same as Witcher 1. Maybe it was the fact that they spent too much time evening things out so there were no wrong choices and no right ones either. Sure the humans persecuted the non humans, but the elves were just as murderous and, who knows, probably had done the same if they had been in the majority. So we are just left with two racist camps one of which is going to hate you, the other call you their champion. The end result was that it got hard to care about any 'cause' and this made the forced choice between them a nuisance.

 

Consider just how much work is going to have to be put into TW3 just to fit in all the paths in TW1 and TW2 and have them be slightly significant

 

I wouldn't worry about that, Geralt has recurring amnesia.

Edited September 4, 2011 by Gorgon

[kalimeeri]

Part of this might be sequel baiting/making sure that they can have a franchise. Consider just how much work is going to have to be put into TW3 just to fit in all the paths in TW1 and TW2 and have them be slightly significant (well... more significant than "did I pick Shani or Triss?" was).

 

 

Ok, Saskia is a perfect example of this. She's under the spell, or the spell is broken, or she's dead... Any one of these three creates an issue the writers will have to deal with if they intend to have Iorveth as a character in the future (although how he's treated in the epilogue doesn't really bode well for that) because that fight and political situation directly affects him as a character. Although they do seem to be aiming to paint the current path of our albino sex machine south into the Empire rather than stick around where the consequences are, but there are still some significant issues. Like Letho. Is he alive or dead?

 

Probably not as much work as you think. Characters that are created for the game, not in the books--may get an honorable mention in passing, but will likely never be seen again.

 

i.e., much like Yaevin and Sigfried, Saskia, Letho, Iorvath, and Roche are unlikely to follow Geralt in any case, so their fates don't really pose a big issue.

 

None of the Core characters like Zoltan, Triss and Dandelion were dramatically changed, nor does the political "resolution" in any of the paths end up very different. That's what counts. Setting in the third game will again be different from either of the previous games... but my guess is it'll be north toward Nilfgaard. IIRC the South is the promised land to witchers, a few villages and nothing but monsters to slay (few if any sorceresses); putting an anti-political figure into a political stew makes a better story, not to mention that Geralt's overall personal quest is still hanging.

 

I would have liked to have known that I was making that choice

 

Heh. Kind of like real life, eh? No manual or guide to tell you what to do, no choice but to live with the consequences.

Edited September 4, 2011 by kalimeeri

[Hassat Hunter]

I don't get it either. They're trying too hard to pull the "cool indie guys" card with their trash talking of BioWare & Bethesda, only to push out a title that's even more dumbed down than the aforementioned devs' latest titles... and somehow they get a free pass for all their histrionics while no-nonsense developers like Piranha Bytes, Larian Studios or *gasp* Reality Pump are all but ignored.

I don't know. W2 isn't as bad as DA2 or Oblivion, in that I actually found it fun to play once. Can't push myself past Chapter 1 again to experience the branch though. Ch1 is not much fun...

Risen got plenty of attention. Agree The Dragon Knight Saga got too little (especially for it's quality). Can't say I heard of Reality Pump. Title?

For example, it's incredible how CDRed is using patches as marketing tools calling them "enhancement" or "free improved version 2.0" and to see the excited reaction of the player base. "You see, they really care for us!", I see it over and over again in gaming forums.

While in the good ol' days they would be free too, the additions they do (missions, skins) do get knickled and dimed these days, making it an actual boon to get them free.

Morrowind had entire quests for free. In Oblivion Horse armor was $6. Giving free content (and no DRM) in these insane times does give us reason to praise them.

Patching a bug or refining a feature that it's not working like it's supposed to be is a must, not a bone that you throw to your customer like a bonus.

Sadly enough, that's not even a given these days. Plenty of titles that still needed patches never got any. Or inferior ones. We even seen it with The Sith Lords, right?

Adding small features like arena or a new mode that addresses a problem in the game in terms of difficulty setting it's good but it's not such a big deal.

It is if a "arena" is nickled by the competition (first ME DLC). Sadly enough very few of these "no big deal" things are free these days. "no big deal" can easily net $5. Or $15 if it's for CoD.

Blizzard or Bioware has never made such a clamour out of their patches because they owe it to us.

Not really. But you do know Blizzard got a nice rep from it's patching and polish? A rep no other dev has?

I can't say I like a single Blizard title, but I can't disagree they do the best work for their community in patching and testing.

The skill system is flat, gives only passive bonus

More RPG's should do this IMO. I am always getting stuck with dozens of useless skills cluthering up whatever it is you need to cycle through skills (taskbar for Divinity and Drakensang, menu for TSL, etc.)

I would have liked to have known that I was making that choice when I gave the sqoyatel (sp) leader his sword.

 

Funny. I didn't and later on got a choice, Vernon or Zoltan. Each with their own quest entry saying specifically what would happen if I contacted either of them. You didn't?

Did you confuse Zoltan's request to meet you on the hill as a quest progression instead of a choice???